The Gap Between Wildlife and the Animal Rights Movement

Excuse the sudden and random departure from the typical self-aggrandizing and narcissistic ornithophilic content. That will return next month. Today I’m exploring a couple questions that have been bouncing in my head for a while…I’d love to hear your thoughts…I’m not calling into question animal rights, just the focus of the movement. – The Great Ornithologist Felonious Jive

Animal rights. I know on some level, I think that’s something almost all of us can get behind…no one, except the most callous and cold-hearted of the human race things its fine to torture animals, or deny that they are capable of pain and suffering. Unfortunately, once we discuss anything beyond this basic point, people vastly disagree on what is right and wrong.

The animal rights movement is (rightly) closely associated with protesting things like factory farming, dogfighting, etc…basically, the mistreatment of animals. This makes perfect sense. What I don’t understand is why animal rights organizations almost completely ignore wildlife. It seems that these people, who purport to claim to care so much about animals, are completely ignorant of the existence of any animal life beyond horses, cows, pigs, chickens and turkeys. Sure PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, who are the biggest and best known animal rights organization), Sea Shepards and the like are involved with protesting and interfering with whaling operations (and I wish them all the best on that front), but they are essentially voiceless when it comes to two of the big evils that face wildlife around the world, namely, habitat destruction and invasive species. As you can see here, PETA does not even address these issues at all, while portraying themselves as indeed giving a damn. Habitat destruction and degradation is far and away the number one reason why wildlife populations are extirpated or go extinct. There is nothing abstract or controversial about this. The number of individual birds and mammals alone that are affected by these factors are countless; and when you consider fish, reptiles and amphibians, it is hard to comprehend the magnitude of life that gets wiped out around the world (and certainly including the U.S.) on a daily basis, both legally and otherwise.

What’s even more frustrating is when animal rights people learn of plans to cull nonnative species. Nonnative species have huge impacts on wildlife species everywhere….mice kill seabird chicks in their burrows, rats eat endangered bird eggs, overpopulated deer clear the understory of forests, pigs root out native plants and terrestrial animals, cats kill anything they can get their paws on. A classic example of what an invasive species is capable of resides on the island of Guam…when one species of snake made its way onto to the island via airplane, practically all of the island’s birds went extinct in a matter of a few decades. The birds had evolved without a predator like this, and with the new snake having no predators, it had no problem decimating the island’s birdlife.

Many governments around the world are now privy to the ecological and economic harm invasive species cause, and some (such as New Zealand and the United States) have invested large sums of money to help make things right, both in programs to prevent nonnative species from becoming established, and to eradicate populations of nonnative animals that have significant impacts on native wildlife. Among biologists and birders alike, these programs are usually met with great praise. For example, when the U.S. Navy wiped out every single rat on Midway Atoll, seabirds flourished afterwards. Rats had previously preyed on eggs and young of practically every defenseless seabird on the island, and had taken to even attacking adult albatross as they sat on their nests. The number of bird lives saved as a result of the rat removal operation can easily be estimated to be into the millions by now. Albatross chicks will no longer have to endure slowly getting eaten alive, unlike this poor bird.

Instead of embracing these fantastic programs, a typical reaction from people within the animal rights movement is to condemn and protest the act, because animals were going to die. The logic of this is ridiculous. Yes, of course it is too bad that so many animals (most often rats, mice and rabbits) have to be killed. But the lives that will be saved by native habitats returning to normal, decreasing predation, and more indirect ecosysytem benefits are countless. People interested in animal welfare who are against this idea are completely missing the point here. It is simply not feasible to safely live-trap thousands of animals and conveniently move them to some rescue shelter…the time and money do not exist, and you will never remove every individual without accidentally killing some. Taking risks with any of these removals of “alien” species renders the whole operation pointless…it only takes two (2) to start the cycle all over again.

This narrow, frankly ignorant point of view is complete hypocrisy. How can people say they care about animals while seemingly ignoring the existence of the wild ones that have been there for thousands of year? Since they never think about cows and chickens going extinct, the concept that this possibility is very real and is what biologists are often trying to prevent goes right over their heads. The simple fact is this; by protesting the removal of harmful non-nativespecies, they are supporting the unnecessary deaths and even extinction of many species.

If you, animal lover, have no interest in providing wildlife a healthy environment, then your efforts and passions are brought into question. I’m not writing this to rant against PETA (god knows enough people do that), in fact their stance on feral cats is comparatively progressive compared to some of their counterparts, although they aren’t exactly on the anti-cat train most birders are on. Obviously its perfectly fine to concentrate on one particular problem (i.e. there is actually a group dedicated to saving lobsters!), but for animal rights groups to claim to be dedicated to animal welfare and practically ignore the most serious issues wildlife face is blatantly hypocritical. By focusing almost exclusively on barnyard creatures and denizens of laboratories, they turn a blind eye to who really could use their help…wildlife!

The Great Ornithologist Felonious Jive is indisputably the world’s greatest birder. As a child, Felonious was involved in a tragic accident that left him blind and crippled. Miraculously, he began regaining his faculties while parked at a window that faced his family’s bird feeder. Following his full recovery, he continued his pursuit of birds past his family’s yard and out across the globe. Now, his identification skills are unmatched by anyone living, dead, or unborn. Although considered a living deity in the birding community, his avian abilities have made him critical of his comparatively inexperienced peers. This has won him no popularity contests, although he remains much sought-after by birdwatchers of the opposite sex. His close colleague Seagull Steve writes of his exploits at Bourbon, Bastards and Birds.

Share This Article

FB Comments

33 Comments

“Animal rights. I know on some level, I think that’s something almost all of us can get behind…”

No, not me.

“…no one, except the most callous and cold-hearted of the human race things its fine to torture animals, or deny that they are capable of pain and suffering.”

Agreed. I’m 100% behind Animal Welfare.

Please don’t confuse these two. Believing that animals should be treated humanely (animal welfare) is NOT the same thing as believing that it is murder to eat meat once and a while, or that pets = slaves (animal rights).

Oh my goodness; I somewhat disagree. I think the gap between animal rights and wildlife protection is closer ideologically, than you think. Eating meat hurts the environment through farming expansion and methane gases (one of the leading causes of global warming). This is a core belief among vegans and the Peta movement. A lot of Peta members also support wildlife conservation groups and work locally in humane societies, albeit sometimes in euthanizing pet populations. Peta’s website doesn’t portray this as much as thier website is a PR hub, much like everything they do. Most animal rights groups beleive in removing feral cats and spaying/neutering current populations. I could go on and on but mostly, I am an animal rights activist, environmentalists, and wildlife protector. I do bobolink sit-ins, donate lots of money to land conservatories, volunteer, and promote veganism among other things to protect all plants and wildlife, both localy and globaly. There is nothing wrong with keeping the scope of a group small(like Peta’s anti cruelty torch), but the idealogies overlap and I think there is even room to work together. I will also go on to say that people that are “anti cruelty”, non progressive about euthanasia, anti hunting, etc. are not animal rights activists. Don’t confuse fluffy animal lovers with actual animal rights people. Boycott the circus and eat local family farm meat.

I think the animal rights community is in a tough place. They value every life. Once you are born, you have a right to live. People would be complaining how hypocritical it is for them to support killing one species to attempt to preserve another species from extinction, the latter of which is caused primarily by habitat loss due to human development (suburbia, highways and meat-consumption). I do think most animal rights people support groups like land conservancies, wildlife societies, sierra clubs and their political endeavors, in addition to other animal-related causes.
My definition of animal rights includes animal welfare. Those who believe animals have the right to some level of animal welfare are, by definition, animal rightists.

Casey eating meat clearly does not harm the environment in North America. Compare a ranch where cattle graze the native grasses of the prairie provinces and states with a wheat, corn or soybean field. The crops are a barren wasteland supporting very few species of animals whereas the grasslands support a diverse community of wildlife. Converting grasslands to crops is devestating and grassland songbirds are the most threatened species in North America. Who is battling for the rights of the Sprague’s Pipit, Long-billed Curlew and Loggerhead Shrike? Certainly not the animal rights people. Grazing is essential for healthy grasslands as a result cattle are critical. As for methane produced by cattle contributing to global warming, get a grip, they simply replaced the millions of bison we nearly hunted to extinction.

@Dan – Forgive my terminology, I am writing from a place in “the general public”. I am not sure how you are defining the difference between animal rights and animal welfare, please enlighten us.

I agree that meat is not murder, but only because murder is defined as something human. Nor is meat a flock of crows, if you know what Im saying.

@Casey – I MUST know what a Bobolink sit-in entails.

I was vegan for a considerable amount of time and am well aware of the connection between factory farming and global warming, pollution, and other aspects of environmental degradation. I was specifically pointing out the lack of attention PETA and their ilk pay to habitat destruction and the problem of invasive species. I don’t think environmental groups and animal rights/welfare groups are inherently at odds with each other.

Speaking as a biologist, simply spaying/neutering feral cat populations is not really acceptable if you are trying to eliminate impacts to local wildlife.

@MJ – I don’t think the hypocrisy discussion is really relevant when the threat of actual extinction is involved. I think most environmentalists would happily trade the lives of a million starlings for 10 Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. In the “natural” world, there is not much worse out there than extinction. That said, I realize that these conflicts are not always so cut and dry…

How would you define the difference between animal rights and animal welfare?

@ Dan S. – Your examples are valid but shortgrass prairie is the ONLY ecosystem in the U.S. that responds well to such heavy grazing pressure. Putting those cattle in forests, alpine meadows, riparian areas or sagebrush have terrible consequences on vegetation and wildlife. At any rate I think Casey was referring to more industrial operations, which is where the vast majority of our country’s meat products come from.

Man you’re dumb. You dont even know the difference between animal rights and animal welfare. Also, everyone knows that bison are the same as cows and that one simply replaced the other. Did you even go to college? Maybe you should do some research before you go bashing meat-eaters and animal-rights activists alike. This article made me sick.

Whoooa. Everyone seems to be taking things a little too personally here. How ’bout you all calm it on down a notch or three.
I’m trying my hardest to not slam all you ignorant fools who got all offended enough to comment. But as a vegan (16 years now), environmentalist, and a wildlife biologist, I see exactly what the Jive guy is saying here, and if you don’t, then perhaps you should get your sh!t together.

The problem seems to be when people define themselves broadly as “animals lovers,” when what they really mean is “cat lover” or “horse lover” or whichever nuisance population you’re dealing with. A co-worker of mine wondered how I felt about an area feral cat population, and I told her frankly. Knowing full well how much time I spend outdoors, and despite her complete ignorance of any native wildlife, she felt that she had the moral high-ground as “an animal lover”. If she were just honest about being partial to cats, I’d almost feel like, “oh well, you’re just standing up for what you love – fair enough.” Only through of her insistence on referring to herself as an “animal lover” has she opened herself up to hypocrisy. I suspect that a lot of the other hypocrites you mentioned also have agendas that they’re glossing over semantically in order to draw on a wider base of support.

Casey, with regards to your comment “Oh my goodness; I somewhat disagree. I think the gap between animal rights and wildlife protection is closer ideologically, than you think. ” I dealt with this in my story a few weeks ago. Essentially, they draw from the same impulse and have common ground but the level at which they operate ensures that they also ultimately have different objectives which may come into conflict.http://10000birds.com/when-conservation-and-animal-rights-collide.htm

You all have great points and I agree with most of them except that eating meat is not bad for the environment as it is. 60% of crops grown in this country are for feeding livestock. So how is clear cutting the natural habitat to feed some methane spewing cows not bad for the environment? And there are more cows, pigs, sheep, and other animals spewing methane gases (among other industrious farming chemical practices) that greatly out way the bison that once lived here. Not to mention the horrors of overfishing. I still see nothing wrong though with raising a cow or chicken of your own for consumption. @Nick, you are spot on. @dan…Do you really think cows and sprague’s pipits can live together? Maybe out in North Dakota where there is not huge farms covering the land as far as you can see(please visit ohio or indiana). There is no trampling of ground nests? I am from the Midwest (where we do boblink sitins) where cows will decimate our prairies and hence causing the beautiful grassland birds to go in decline. Upland sandpipers are about 1-2 years from being extirpated from our county because a farmer insists on mowing his long grass once a year to get hay for his horses and pigs.

Just in reading this article, I knew there would be much debate even before seeing the comments.

@Kasey: Agreed!

There are lots of agencies (I’ve donated to many) who deal with wildlife/environmental impacts.
•Center for Biological Diversity
•Animal Legal Defense Fund
•In Defense of Animals
•Natural Resources Defense Council
•Lots More too!

Have you any idea what the BLM does to/with wild mustangs to appease the cattle rancher’s lobby? I know… horses are also non-native, right? Not really, they helped build the infrastructure of this country, and our ancestors revered them.

And if a farm animal is unlucky enough to be born male? Chicks are ground alive, and Calves? The veal industry was created solely as a by-product of the dairy industry.

Gestation crates, battery cages: what’s done to farm these animals on such a massive scale is downright gross… whether you’re an “animal activist” or not.

If vegan isn’t your thing, that’s ok too. Just “think of the suffering which you choose to ignore every now & then” Limit meat & dairy. Don’t support circuses or Seaworld, or any other “live animal shows”. Don’t swim with the dolphins either, despite what the company says, these animals are captive.

Here’s a cool one by National Geographic: The movie “Collapse” portrays our planet 250 years from now. Great food for thought!

Have you seen the latest satellite images over Greenland concerning ice melts?
Ever seen or heard of the movie The Cove?
Heard about Ben the Bear, or Tony the Truck Stop Tiger?

@Duncan. I love your writing and I completely agree. It is very thought provoking to think of a population as a whole instead of the suffering of one individual. As an “animal activist”, I agree with taking out the individual (humanely) for the long term solution in conservation. I agree that we should be beating cowbirds over the head in Michigan to keep the Kirtland’s warbler successful and taking out the rats that threaten the murrelets (same story with the Tristan albatrosses) .
Life will endure!I could only wish I had the writing skills as you to help spread the word needed for education and helping long term conservation within animal activists groups. They should not be mutually exclusive. Maybe I’m a fringe animal activist that sees both sides but I also see an opportunity.
Also, a bobolink sitin is what it sounds like. It starts with educating your local farmers on the local birds and when the best time to mow their back lots should be changed to accommodate fledgling ground nesting birds. 5 or 6 years ago, a group of 9 birders from Michigan stopped mowers from taking out 10 acres of grass prairie that had 14 nesting bobolink pairs; by physically blocking the machinery on private property(yes there was police involved). The farm and farmer in question is now a birder and waits to get his hay in July after the fledglings are gone. Now a days, this tiny and unnoticed movement is mostly door to door education on grassland birds and helping private property owners promote conservation. It is a loose organization between friends in southern Michigan. Cooperation and education are the drivers for even just a little bit of success. I became involved on accident on a local birding trip where we stopped to talk to a farmer about the grasshopper sparrows we saw on his horse grazing lot.

@Duncan – Wow I can’t believe I missed your post! I had written most of this several months ago and didnt think anyone here could possibly be addressing the same topic at the same time…I’ll catch up on it soon.

@Casey – Well done re: BOBOSIT. A respectable deed to be sure.

@Beth – Haha you are a bit scattered there…I was hoping people would focus on the issue at hand (wildlife conflicts), but I know its easy to slip into the other issues as well. As far as horses go, I’m not sure what you mean by “our ancestors revered them”…since most of the people here are European (I’m half) I would suppose that is true. Burros and mustangs are still exotic species that make life harder for other desert species (i.e. bighorn sheep).

I share affiliations with all parties. As such, I agree with Casey that there’s a lot of overlap into one big gray area. Even issues you cite as examples are not black-and-white themselves. As one for instance, the eradication of long-standing non-native plants in some areas carries the burden of reduced habitat and food sources for animals who’ve come to exploit these particular niches over time. There’s a lot of ambiguity across the board, and that includes philosophical ambiguity across these diverse groups.

Caring for individual animals and species, does not preclude having a bigger vision when significant environmental issues threaten to overturn a sensitive ecology. And, similarly, remedying ecological problems doesn’t mandate cruelty toward the animals in question — something that animal rights people would argue when some horrific means are used to exterminate.

I think it’s an individual matter, not an institutional one, whether one can expand their horizons to embrace other points of view. You can’t lump animal rights people into one closed box any more than you can do so for environmentalists, biologists or birders. To limit the examples to single organizations (like PETA) is to ignore a long and noble history of animal rights philosophy that overlaps with all other forms of anti-exploitation activism, including civil and human rights discourse.

In as much as there might be hypocrisy among those who claim to be animal lovers but who care nothing for wildlife, there’s also hypocrisy among any of us who argue for rebalancing nature by way of extermination, while not addressing over-population in our own species, arguably the most damaging ecological numbers of all.

@Duncan – Horses originally evolved here, but went extinct up to 13,000 years ago. Ecosystems have changed since then, at least to some degree. If you let loose a bunch of lions and elephants into Yellowstone and called them “native”, I think you agree that obviously is not true. I’m not aware of how similar America’s current “wild” domestic horses are to those extinct species, or if it can be said that they really coevolved with current ecosystems. Since so many of the continent’s charismatic megafauna have gone extinct since the last ice age, things have undoubtedly changed (and thats without considering direct human influences).

Gentlemen, there are some 224 million acres of PUBLIC land the BLM is responsible for managing. Of that 224 million acres, wild horses and burros are allotted less than 16 million acres. With cattle grazing some 200+ million acres of grasslands, from where do you honestly think the destruction of our fragile ecosystem stems?

Simply a matter of supply & demand, we are meat-eaters. Horses are rounded up only to have cattle replace them and the and sees no rest.
We have and will continue to destroy until resources are depleted.

@Beth – The BLM unfortunately does not have a very good reputation for protecting natural resources, I agree. There is no doubt how much damage to habitat grazing cattle inflict, but the BLM is legally bound to allow it. If burros and horses can be removed from 15+ million acres (that is still a big chunk of land), then I see that as a positive thing. Although Im sure there is some overlap between where horses/burros and cattle spend time, horses/burros are much more agile than cattle and can access areas cattle can not.

I dont think the arguments made that cattle simply replace other mammals have much evidence. Cattle, bison and horses all graze differently, behave differently, and forage differently. Studies have even shown that plants grazed by cattle and bison react differently based on the differences in the chemical makeups of the animals’ saliva!

@casey – I thought I had limited my comments by mentioning the prairie provinces and states. We essentially agree. My point was, perhaps not clearly enough stated, cattle should be raised on native grasslands not, as you mentioned, stuffed into stockyards and fed corn and grain. Cattle should not be raised where its not sustainable, like forests. However with the proper stocking rates and grazing regime the prairies can and do benifit from cattle grazing. Can pipits and cattle coexist? Absolutely, and they do. The community pastures of the prairie provinces are among the last strongholds for pipits and the rest of the native grassland sparrows. Grazing along with the occasional controlled burn create the mozaic of grassland habitats required for the variety of species characteristic of a healthy grassland. Obviously things are different in differnt parts of the country but I can only speak for the area I know. I think the most important aspect of this is stocking rates and grazing regimes, careful control of both can keep a grassland healthy and productive for both cattle and our grassland birds.
@seagullsteve – yes cattle and bison are different in how they graze and plants may react differently to that but bison aren’t going to replace cattle any time soon so we make the best of what we have on a prairie that requires grazing.

Corey et al – The extinct wild horse of NA is the same species as Mustangs, albeit probably a different subspecies. The situation is theoretically no different to the Takahe in my local refuge, a close relative of an extinct species or subspecies filling a lost niche. Such rewilding substitutions exist and more are proposed, with varying levels of feasibility ( http://10000birds.com/filling-the-gap-left-by-debooys-rail.htm ). I’m not suggesting that they are not in need of management, just that affording them the same status as say rats on Anacapa or zebra mussels is a bit much.

I agree on 90% of what you say, but I completely disagree on the last point where you say ‘By focusing almost exclusively on barnyard creatures and denizens of laboratories, they turn a blind eye to who really could use their help…wildlife!’. I’m sure you understand ecology as you’ve discussed many times in your article. Anyway, I still want to remind you that left alone, all animals can survive in harmony. Nothing will be overpopulated if there is no human intervention in the ecosystem.

‘Cattle are responsible for about 80% of all deforestation’ in the Amazon region. In recent years, on average one hectare of Amazon rainforest has been lost to cattle ranchers every 18 seconds.

The Amazon is full of sentient beings ranging from indigenous tribes to native animal and plant species.

“About 85 percent of the world’s soybean crop is processed into meal and vegetable oil, and virtually all of that meal is used in animal feed. Some two percent of the soybean meal is further processed into soy flours and proteins for food use… Approximately six percent of soybeans are used directly as human food, mostly in Asia.”

Here’s another bit of information. It’s not the Amazonians who are growing the cattle! It mostly multinationals. The USA then exports that to places like the UK and Australia.

These ‘barnyard’ animals have to be fed on plants, water, they produce waste, methane, take up land. We have to wait for them to grow. Usually, it’s by grain feeding, growth hormones etc. so more harm. So we are bound to count the land for growing the crops, the land for growing the animals, the plants that feed the animal and the waste/water etc. The animal uses most of the plant food as energy to move around, grow etc so does not use all of it to produce meat.

Raising animals for food requires more than ONE THIRD of all the raw materials and fossil fuels used in the United States.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the runoff from factory farms pollutes our rivers and lakes more than all other industries combined.

1 gallon of gasoline burned in an internal-combustion engine releases about 19 pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
1 hamburger requires clearing and burning of rainforest which releases 165 pounds of carbon dioxide.
(adappt)

Bovine emissions actually account for about 51% of all global warming.
(World Watch)

50% of water used in the US is for raising animals for food. Each person on a carnivorous diet requires 4,200 gallons of water per day.
Each person on a vegan diet requires 300 gallons of water per day, just for comparison.

2.9 million acres of rainforest were destroyed in the 2004-2005 crop season in order to grow crops that feed chickens and other animals in factory farms. For every pound of hamburger produced in rainforest countries, approximately 220 square feet of rainforest are cleared to grow the required feed. The cattle industry is the world’s largest driver of deforestation.

Taking all the above points into account, there must be no confusion that wildlife and barnyard animals are always linked although indirectly. No effort is futile, even if these animal rights organisations are working only for the welfare of barnyard animals its indirectly helping our wildlife too. However, I agree to your point that more direct actions towards preservation of our wildlife is required.

Lastly, concerning your point on the overpopulation of mice which had disastrous effect on seabirds. All species are linked together in some way and when one species disappears, an imbalance can occur. A perfect example is the overpopulation of mice. Coyotes are excessively hunted in US, allowing for an overpopulation of deer mice, the coyotes prey. Again, it is directly related to unnecessary human intervention.

Conservation should begin by understanding biodiversity, it’s not about creating an imbalance and then trying to fix it with extreme measures. This is what I believe.

@Sneha – “Harmony” in nature is a strictly human construct…I don’t think mass extinction events (i.e. when dinosaurs disappeared) are very harmonious to many of the species involved. The relationships between different plants, animals and the climate have been constantly changing ever since life began, it is not as if nature would return to a static, peaceful state if humans were to suddenly disappear. Overpopulation in various species/populations has undoubtedly occurred countless times before humanity became the environmental force (to put it mildly) that we are now. That said, since people tend to remove top predators from ecosystems and change the environment in ways that benefit adaptable, opportunistic species (i.e. deer mice), we certainly do cause a hell of a lot of “imbalances”.

Dan nailed it with the first comment! Animal welfare is a far different thing than animal rights. From what I’ve seen, animal rights is not interested in actually improving animals’ situations, at least in a common sense way. They’re out to get animals considered to be equal to humans and compare their plight to be the same as Martin Luther King’s push for civil rights. They think all animals should be free, and that keeping them as pets, using them for work, and/or raising them for food is slavery and barbaric. ‘Animals should get to live of their own accord’, and no, I’ve never seen anything from them about negative impacts people make on animals’ natural environment for wildlife. They turn animals loose, thinking they’re doing them a favor, without thinking about things like that those animals have never had to fend for themselves or the impact on native animals in the area.

Yes, New Zealand and the United States are investing “large sums of money to help make things right.” But there’s not enough money in the world to turn back the clock. And even if we could, to which date would we turn in back? And who among us decides?

We often talk about invasive species as if this were a recent development; but humans began changing the earth in very fundamental ways long, long ago. Which raises the question: what do we mean by “native species”?

In his provocative 1998 essay, “Nativism and Nature: Rethinking biological invasion,” Jonah Peretti argues, “it is unclear how long a species needs to be established in a location before it is considered native.”

“Is a species ‘naturalised’ in 100 years, 1,000 years, or 10,000 years? The distinctions are arbitrary and unscientific. Nativist trends in Conservation Biology have made environmentalists biased against alien species. This bias is scientifically questionable, and may have roots in xenophobic and racist attitudes” (Peretti, 1998).

In fact, most people are shocked to learn how few species ARE native. Where’s the outcry against honeybees, for example, which originated in South and Southeast Asia? These days, the conversation is how to SAVE them.

“In many places,” suggests environmental philosopher Mark Sagoff, “one can hardly imagine the landscape without alien species” (Sagoff, 1999). “Virtually everything down on the farm is an exotic: of all crops, only sunflowers, cranberries, and Jerusalem artichokes evolved in North America. Corn, soybeans, wheat, and cotton have been imported from some other land. Cattle came from Europe. Rockfish—or striped bass as they are known outside Maryland—are native to the Bay but have been introduced up and down the Atlantic and Pacific coasts for sport and commercial fishing. More than 90 percent of all oysters sold in the world are produced by aquaculture, and almost the entire oyster industry on the West Coast is based on a species imported from Japan” (Sagoff, 1999).

(One wonders if the people vilifying, say, feral cats for their non-native status structure their diets so as to consume only native plants and animals. Somehow I doubt it.)

Our very identities can be wrapped up in what is, in fact, alien, notes Sagoff. “Kentucky identifies itself as the ‘Bluegrass State,’ but bluegrass immigrated from England” (Sagoff, 1999). And immigrants, Sagoff points out, are—broadly speaking—often unwelcome.

“Those who seek funds to exclude or eradicate non-native species,” he argues, “often attribute to them the same disreputable qualities that xenophobes have attributed to immigrant groups. These undesirable characteristics include sexual robustness, uncontrolled fecundity, low parental involvement with the young, tolerance for ‘degraded’ or squalid conditions, aggressiveness, predatory behavior, and so on” (Sagoff, 1999).

Frankly, I find the whole native/non-native “argument” to be, more often than not, little more than a red herring, a distraction. Were we to learn tomorrow, say, that the domestic cat has been in North America for thousands of years, it’s difficult to imagine the news making the slightest difference to those who advocate for their roundup.

Putting aside the differences of opinion people have about feral cats, Nick, do you see no validity in Peter’s question of what constitutes “non native?” For the purposes of discussion, I think it’s an interesting and fair question, especially when you consider the points that Felonius Jive makes — and keeping in mind that there are published pieces in conservation biology, suggesting a more nuanced approach toward certain non natives as potentially “valuable.” As I wrote above, I share sentiments with all sides of these issues. I just think there’s a significant gray area in many conservation problems and solutions.

Ingrid, I agree that the question of native vs. non-native is not black and white, and certainly there’s room for nuance and honest debate about many of the issues that have been raised in the Jive’s post and in the comments thread. However, Peter’s question, and indeed his entire perspective, cannot, I believe, be considered “honest debate”. He’s the author of a fundamentalist cat website where he engages in anti-conservation hysterics about the American Bird Conservancy simply because they call attention to the fact that feral cats kill birds. I call your attention to the following:

“It’s difficult not to see this as an act of desperation—the PR-equivalent of an all-caps e-mail. I’m surprised it hasn’t happened sooner, though, given all that ABC and TWS have in common. Their shared disdain for TNR, obviously, but also their utter disregard for science, scientific literacy, and the truth about the impacts of free-roaming cats.”

As I read his comment, it seemed clear to me from the way that he posed his question on native vs. non-native that his real interest was in painting all conservationists as racists, as a means of dismissing the entire debate. So, while most of the people in this thread acknowledge that this is a complicated issue, I think all of the previous commenters are willing to engage in that debate. Except for Peter. Peter would rather not have the debate at all, because he sees any attempt at preserving or protecting wildlife as a full-out assault on cats. His objective is not in finding a balanced approach… it’s in letting the chips fall where they may, with no intervention at all by wildlife experts to protect at-risk species. He raises the native vs. non-native question, not a call for acknowledging that important gray-area, but rather to say, “there is no black-and-white means of determining what is native, therefore stop trying to protect native species.”

Nick, thanks for the clarification on your point. Much appreciated. It’s very difficult for me not to see all sides of these issues because although I studied conservation and resources, and am involved in various conservation groups, I’ve also worked hands-on in animal welfare all of my adult life — both with domestic animals (animal shelters.) and with wildlife, as a volunteer rehabilitator. I guess you could say that although I am impassioned where issues of environment, habitat and species loss are concerned, I understand intimately the emotions that inspire responses like Peter’s. When you witness, everyday, the cruelty that results from human ignorance or malice, or sometimes, misguided policies, it can turn the most reasoned of humans into one who simply can’t defend any cruelty toward animals whatsoever — even when the scientific justifications appear sound from a data and numerical perspective. I think that’s why I personally lean initially toward a high degree of skepticism whenever a species is targeted for eradication, until I know the full picture. I see human greed, development, pollution and over-population causing the bulk of these issues and conflicts, and it troubles me that other species, native included, are almost always at the losing end of our rapacious appetite … and sometimes scapegoated without addressing the core issues that drive these imbalances.